Sunday, July 29, 2007

Gee, Bill, that's impressive. You say you can come up with 30 examples of "hate speech" (as defined by you, of course) off the Daily Kos? Thirty.....out of, what is it now(?), oh yeah, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POSTINGS OVER THE YEARS!!!...................Seriously,. though, dude, you really need to take a basic statistics course or something here - this, I'm saying, BEFORE you open your trap to propose such stupidity. I mean, think about it - as opposed to making the other side's argument for them, leading with your face, etc..................And, besides, you should really think about cleaning up your own little web-site first, before you cast dispersions. Hey, do you really ask for people's credit card numbers, prior to letting them post? That's kind of creepy, dude - that, and the whole FOX security, too, I'm saying.

Saturday, July 28, 2007

O'Reilly really needs to make up his mind here. The Daily Kos - are they more like the Nazis, the K.K.K., or Benito Mussolini? I mean, it doesn't seem possible, does it, that all three of these comparisons (each bombastic in their own way, obviously) could simultaneously be true?................... Oh, alright, I guess they could be but, really, does anybody with even a smidgen of common sense here believe that the Daily Kos is comparable to Hitler, Mussolini, and people who used to lynch black people simply out of sheer hatred? Me, I just cant fathom there being anyone. Seriously.

Friday, July 27, 2007

There's this liberal (one might say ultra-liberal) web site, right, the Daily Kos. Apparently they have this format in which anybody can post a response to one of their stories/ editorials. And, yes, occasionally one of these respondents says something that one might consider inappropriate/ over-the-top. Of course, having such a format leaves them open to criticism by blow-hards such as O'Reilly, who somehow, in those little minds of theirs, are able to conflate the opinions of those fringe customers to those of the actual people who run the site.................I don't know. I guess I'm in a quandary here. Part of me thinks that those statements of a vile and incendiary nature probably SHOULD be deleted (if for no other reason that they give O'Reilly "ammo" for his own equally broad/ intolerant brush). Of course, when I start to get a little too close to that notion, so, too, do images of censorship, thought-policing, etc. start to emerge. I mean, it's bad enough that O'Reilly himself stifles debate through intimidation, the diminution of his "adversaries", and more-so. We certainly don't need others doing it, too.................Hey, speaking of hateful rhetoric, did you hear how, in reference to moderate Republican Lincoln Chaffee, Ann Coulter said, "hmmm, looks like they assassinated the wrong Lincoln."? Apparently, O'Reilly hasn't. "Assassinated", she goes!!

Thursday, July 26, 2007

I tell you, though, part of me is really starting to admire O'Reilly. I mean, think about it. He and his minions literally scour the countryside, looking for shit; straw-dogs/ situations that they can cite to as categorical proof of some "culture war". This latest example, I particularly love. It seems that the San Diego Padres (on the same day, apparently) sponsored both a "bat day" and a "gay pride day". I mean, talk about giving it to O'Reilly on a silver-platter here - homosexuals at the same locale as youngsters, intermingling with them, etc.. This, and the fact it was apparently a "Pearl Harbor" job.....on the parents, as well. How despicable - this, according to O'Reilly (the intermingling, in particular, I gather)..................But seriously, though, folks, apart from the somewhat impolitic nature of the Padres' action here, can we at least look at this situation somewhat logically? The fear is that, what, young people will see homosexuals in mass? That they will see them engage each other affectionately? Yeah? Well, first of all, folks, homosexuals are no more or less demonstrative than heterosexuals are (an important point in that the overt displays of affection are apparently what O'Reilly fears). And even when they do in fact display affection, what do you tell the kids? You tell the kids that they love each other - hello! Of course, the fact that homosexuality is largely innate (as opposed to it's being contagious, I'm saying), we probably shouldn't go off the deep-end by worrying about it, either, should we?...................Wow, huh, and it's the kids we've been worrying about.

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

Alright, here's just one example of a Michael Moore-ism. When asked to explain the longer waits for treatments/ appointments/ procedures in Canada, he proceeds to mention the fact that everybody's covered in Canada. This, he compares to the United States, where 47 million people are not covered and, hence, don't even bother to get in line.................A good argument, I initially thought, but, wait a minute here. Is he saying that none of these 47 million ever seek medical help - in the emergency room, clinics, etc.? And what about the fact that the United States has three times as many people as Canada? Would not Canada's lesser population make for a smoother and faster running system? I mean, sure, we probably have a lot more doctors than Canada, too, but, really, I'm kind of thinking that those long lines to the north have more than "universal" coverage to blame for them..................And, no, I'm not saying we shouldn't have universal coverage, not that we shouldn't even have a "single-payer" system, for Christ! All I'm saying is that we really ought to look at ALL available evidence, objectively, before we take a full-blown leap of faith into anything as drastic as this. This, though, I must insist again, at least this guy is talking about something important and, as opposed to FOX, shows a basic concern for working poor.

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

And O'Reilly's such a hypocrite, too. This, I'm saying, in that the son-of-a-bitch rails, unmercifully, whenever a Republican (Giuliani, for instance) is the subject of an investigative report while, at the same time, he and Hannity continue to do hatchet jobs on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, respectively. I mean, don't get me wrong. The Clintons no doubt probably are a venal pair of politicos but, really, to generalize so idiotically on the media like this....and as deceptively as this, that's about as self-serving as you can ever get................And, yes, what about all the mainstream heat that the Clintons have been on the receiving-end of (Anderson's book, Bernstein's book)? Michael Isakoff, for Christ's sake! I mean, that was him, wasn't it, who broke the whole Monica Lewinsky thing to begin with? Talk about a short-term memory, Mr. O'Reilly, I'm saying.................P.S. He, O'Reilly, probably didn't read, either, the fair-and-balanced (I can't be sued for using that now, right?) piece on Giuliani that Isakoff's rag, NEWSWEEK, wrote on the fellow, the glowing piece it did on Jim Baker, it's moving homage to Gerald Ford, etc.. Ha!, not that any of this would persuade him, of course, stooge-like propensities, obviously, being more to HIS liking. Bill O'Reilly, ladies and gentlemen!

Monday, July 23, 2007

The "Hate Bush Syndrome" -he's actually coined a term for it; a psychological condition, if you will. I mean, it's like, what, he thinks that any criticism to the left of his three-quarters to the right of center position is of a pathological nature? Get serious, I want to tell him. This President has committed perhaps the largest foreign policy blunder in United States history. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Everybody thought he had them? Bullshit!! Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Muhammad El what's his name - you know, the guys who actually did the weapons inspecting - were extremely skeptical. And that whole mushroom cloud thing, too, I'm saying, I think there might have been a contrary voice or two there, as well..................As for actually "hating" Bush, though, I'm not exactly sure people (most people, anyway) hate him. They just don't like what he's done to the country. Hell, I'd even go as far as to say that the fellow is a well-intentioned individual (as opposed to him being nefarious, I'm saying). But, yes, so, too, was L.B.J. getting us into Vietnam, McKinley with that whole Philippines fiasco. Well-intentioned, in other words, just doesn't cut it, I'm saying - this, as opposed to showing foresight and competency. You know, the stuff we pay our elected leaders for.

Sunday, July 22, 2007

Of course, there's going to be violence in Iraq after we leave - yes, perhaps even more-so than there currently is. But, I'm telling you, that is going to happen, my friend, whether we leave tomorrow, a year from now (perhaps the most technically feasible option), or 20 years from now. This, I'm saying, in that those various sects and sub-sects are not, NOT, because of our actions/ mandates, going to put aside their animus toward each other. I mean, I'd even go as far as to say that those on the other side of Bush, those who advocate a diplomatic approach to this conflict, are themselves misguided. This, in that sometimes people actually have to fight, sometimes for a long time, and then maybe, MAYBE, they will be willing to talk (as in Northern Ireland, for example).................As to what our troops can in fact accomplish there, sure, our presence does to a certain degree keep a lid on the cauldron. But, seriously, and, yes, clearly understanding the futility of our mission, how can we really justify our own rising death toll? And, no, don't give me all of those lines about Al Qaeda taking over Iraq and making it a safe haven for terrorists. I mean, think about it, Al Qaeda taking over what is undoubtedly going to be a Shia-dominated (Kurdish region excepted) Iraq. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.................This is not, of course, to say that the end-result is going to be pretty. This, in that from what I've heard (Joe Klein, TIME) at least, a very large percentage of even mainstream Shiites have totally fallen for Al Sadr - you know, that guy we probably could have killed a few years ago, HELLO!! And, yes, that, I'm afraid to say, is basically the story here - us, through a short-sighted and arrogant foreign policy, essentially trading in a secular thug (one who was largely contained) for a potentially far more dangerous radical regime WITH CLOSER TIES TO IRAN!! I mean, this is completely beyond belief, what we've accomplished here. TOTALLY BEYOND BELIEF!!

Wednesday, July 18, 2007

O'Reilly, right, he castigates Congressman Winn for advocating "going after the terrorists... wherever the terrorists are", including going after them in Pakistan. O'Reilly's point (and, yes, it was in fact a good point) was that going in to Pakistan without the permission (or even with it, in that President Musharraf's support is minimal) of the Pakistani government would likely produce many grave consequences; civil war, overthrow of the government, international condemnation, etc.. Things, in other words, that happened because of Iraq (not that he was drawing a comparison here - a Republican having been responsible for the latter).................Fair enough so far, right? A funny thing, though, in that within a couple of months of his having "nailed" the Congressman, President Bush himself basically said the same thing at a press briefing - that, if in fact we had hard-core intelligence of Osama bin Laden's location in Pakistan, the U.S. would definitely make every effort to pursue and, yes, kill him THERE!! Talk about an awkward situation, huh? Needless to say, there was nary a word from Bill O. on the President's having advocated this position - "it" evidently not being such a cockamamie idea....coming from him.

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

One of my more vivid Fox memories, though, had nothing to do with O'Reilly. It was an interview by David Asman of former weapons inspector, Scott Ritter - this, in the weeks leading up to the current Iraq war. Asman, obviously in a lather from 9/11 and, yes, clearly on the side of the Bush administration, threw everything but the kitchen sink (code-word, obviously, for Bush's flawed intelligence) at Mr. Ritter, trying to get him to capitulate. Of course, when he saw that Ritter (how astute was HE, in retrospect?) was extremely skeptical of the administration's evidence for WMD, he unleashed this little gem of a taunt at him, "so, do you trust Saddam Hussein more than you trust President Bush?".................I mean, talk about a loaded question, huh? An extremely naive one, too, wouldn't you say - in that, what, our presidents over the years have never lied to us? Nixon and Watergate, Johnson and the Gulf of Tonken, and, yes, the Maine, folks, I think it's pretty fair to say at this point that that son-of-a-bitch sunk itself. But, no, continue to trust THIS president come hell or high water - Gibson, Hannity, O'Reilly, basically all of the featured "stars" at Fox - consistently, I'm saying.

Monday, July 16, 2007

As much as I tried, though, Sally's attachment to that lunatic from Wellesley was itself a broadening of the mystery to me. And the fortress, too, that had rounded hightower previously, the one that had in fact made for her own heart a stumble-bum, etc., damned if that in it's altered state was as cogent, either. I mean, just take a look at those two-by-fours, the various sets of brass-knuckles, her whole face being used as a punching-bag (once, yes, even being beyond the reach of those at Sassy's) - that, and the fact that she nurses him bare, I'm saying!!!

Sunday, July 15, 2007

The competition, though, Bill, it just can't seem to win, now can it? Take, for instance, the recent piece that CNN did on Michael Moore's new movie, "Sicko". It was in fact a very critical expose' that seriously challenged Moore on a number of facts/ underlying assumptions - a piece, in other words, that clearly didn't fit that "the mainstream media is nothing but a mouth-piece of the left" mantra of yours...............Of course, instead of applauding CNN, the only thing you could focus on was Michael Moore's irrational (your definition, not necessarily mine) reaction to the piece. That, and, obviously, you couldn't stop yourself from putting a paranoid little twist on the situation, (I'm paraphrasing) "Moore was shocked when somebody from the left would be critical of him." It's like, talk about having your cake and eating it, too - being able to denigrate Michael Moore while, at the same time, belittling the competition. Wow! I mean, it's almost as if you're a frigging genius, at times - never be minding the paranoia even.

Saturday, July 14, 2007

Bill, if you had actually taken the time to analyze Michael Moore's documentary, you'd realize that he ISN'T in fact talking about the 47 million uninsured. He's talking about the people who DO HAVE insurance and despite the fact that they DO HAVE insurance are still getting reamed with co-pays, deductibles, pay-roll deductions, refusals, policy cancellations, preexisting condition clauses, etc.. Getting reamed, in other words, by this great health care system that you say the 85% of the people who have insurance are happy with............I mean, don't get me wrong here. Michael Moore undoubtedly IS a propagandist - whose facts, anecdotes, proposed solutions, etc. are not the type that I'm necessarily going to hang my hat on, either. But, I'm saying, at least the guy is bringing to the forefront a serious issue here. This, as opposed to you guys at Fox - whose heads always seem to be buried in the sand, subject to the winds of the powerful, etc..

Thursday, July 12, 2007

I have to admit, though, I'm not feeling all that pumped about Valerie Plame, either. I mean, we know who leaked her name, right - Richard Armitage, an opponent of the war. And even if he got the name from others in the administration, still, it was him, I'm saying, who first revealed her name to Robert Novak. Of course, the fact that Armitage was the leaker detracts from the nefariousness....and how can the Bush administration NOT be nefarious?, we wonder...............It's like, don't get me wrong, this administration has in fact butchered foreign policy. But, at the same time, I'm saying, don't we still have to be fair and recognize the difference between sinister actions and hard-ball politics. Joe Wilson pushed them and they pushed back. Wilson said that the V.P.'s office sent him to Niger. The administration said no, that's not true...and apparently they were right. It's unfortunate that the lady's name found it's way to the light of day and all....but, really, was she in fact "outed" at all? I don't know. Maybe, maybe not. She sure wasn't as deep as she could have been, is all I'm saying................And then, of course, there's the law itself - the one that was allegedly broken. At least from what I've been able to gather, the framers of this legislation purposefully made it difficult to prove. This, in that they didn't want it to be used as a political football but, rather, as a true mechanism to deter/ stop actual treasonous activity.................So, yeah/ all in all, let's just say that this is not the Bush administration's largest screw-up/ misdeed, and be done with it. At least for now, I'm saying. At least for now.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

I must admit, though, that John Kasich (another of O'Reilly's substitutes), even though he, too, is a conservative Republican, hasn't nearly shown the same level of blind partisanship. He's questioned, for instance (far more-so in fact that O'Reilly), the wisdom of our being in Iraq, our attempting to ameliorate what are clearly ancient rivalries, etc.. Of course, it's probably because of this Murtha-like analysis that we haven't been seeing him lately. This, in that Heaven forbid, I'm saying, a traditional conservative be featured, absent the "balance" of a lunatic neocon to challenge him. I mean, it's just not going to happen - middle of the week in prime-time, O'Reilly's slot, especially - I'm telling you!

Sunday, July 8, 2007

Bill, if your show is such a "fair and balanced" program, why is it that whenever you're off your replacement is always, ALWAYS a conservative? This, I'm saying, in that for a while it was Tony Snow (gee, whatever happened to that guy?), then it was Laura Ingraham. Now it's that fire-spewing little lunatic, Michelle Malkin. Michelle Malkin, Bill, the individual who said that it was A.O.K. to intern Japanese-Americans during World War 2, that John Kerry got himself wounded on purpose so that he could get out of service in Vietnam, who thinks that we really oughta' get a move on in terms of deporting as many of those brown-skinned Mexicans (illegal aliens, there, I said it!) as possible, etc.. Ha, not that any of these positions are extreme, mind you - that type of thing only coming from the liberals, obviously!!................Or so you say you son-of-a-bitch.

Friday, July 6, 2007

O'Reilly, though, so transparent. He's going off on the government, right; "the government can't do anything right, it's so damned inefficient, etc." (fair enough points, granted). But then, of course, he's got to make his special little caveat for defense; "except for the military."..............HIS SACRED COW, in other words. I mean, I don't know, did I miss something here? Have not government watch-dog groups repeatedly cited the military for wasteful spending; the $600 hammers, the $1200 toilet seats, etc.? And, damn, too, what about the eight BILLION dollars that the Pentagon can't even account for in that putrid little fiasco called Iraq? Yeah, Iraq, I'm saying, yet another marvel of military efficiency.............Seriously, though, O'Reilly, he's really got to read Eisenhower's speech on the Military Industrial Complex. Of course, we're probably going to have to tell him that Eisenhower was a Republican - first and foremost - just to get him to listen, huh?

Thursday, July 5, 2007

But back to this whole blaming the murdered women shtick of yours, a couple of things. First of all, Bill, you DON'T in any way, shape, or form know these people. And what you actually DO claim to know, I'm saying, even that is apparently incorrect. Take this wrestler, for instance. From most of the accounts I've heard, the fellow was apparently decent. I mean, sure, in retrospect, the guy was a troubled individual. But as far being the type of guy who one could say with certitude was capable of murder, I really think that that's something you need to lay off of. Seriously, man..............And, yes, on a related issue, Bill, how the hell do you know that these women (the cop's girl-friend, in particular) DIDN'T try to extricate themselves? Maybe they called the police and the police didn't take them seriously (not, of course, that the cops would ever protect one of their own or anything). Maybe they tried to find alternative shelter and couldn't. I don't know. But that's the thing, neither do you, I'm saying. Hell, maybe the cop's girl-friend threatened to leave, and it was because of this that his threats to her increased. And was she even living with this guy at the time? I mean, O.J.'s ex-wife wasn't living with him. You see what I'm saying? You leave and you still get killed - which is itself in fact a common event. This, according to the experts, Bill.

Tuesday, July 3, 2007

You know something, Bill, I agree with you on something else. Progress, when in fact it's radical progress, DOES have a tendency to tear apart the fabric of society. When they ended slavery, for example (clearly thought of by many to be a radical change), boy, did that ever screw things up for a while down south..............And then, too, when we decided to desegregate the schools (well, those, and the rest of society), again, the disruption to culture and society was massive. In fact, I'm not even sure how we were able to get through it, to be honest with you - fabric of society....being torn apart and all.

Monday, July 2, 2007

Her hair, though, while it wasn't quite as course as Barkley's at Sassy's was, stilted, it was so.....just as much a commodity there. In fact, the very way that it flowed from the pristine fountain of her magnanimity was itself, I'm saying, one of the fortified aspects of life in Wellesley. I mean, just take a look at the essence of what was indeed a purulent disease, the fact that Slade Leeds was himself a part and a parcel to her very charms, etc. - (run-of-mill) aspects, notwithstanding!

I get a kick out of Ann Coulter, too, though. When asked recently about the Vice President's current efforts to avoid being subpoenaed by Congress (his claim, I gather, is that he himself is a separate branch of government and is thus entitled to some unique form of immunity.....or something creative along these lines), she proceeded to put forth some sort of intellectual caveat (yes, perhaps for the first time in her life, I'm saying); saying in essence that this was a complicated case to which she couldn't litigate on television...............Wow, huh? That's pretty incredible, don't you think? - this, from a woman who every time I've seen her is MORE than willing to cast not only an opinion but a sweeping/ categorical statement on societal/ geopolitical issues far, far more complex than the VP's current political predicament. I mean, during this one interview alone, she broad-brushed all trial attorneys as shysters whose only tool is junk science and whose only goal is to bankrupt doctors (lawyers-bad, doctors-good, sweeping enough?)...............Hmmm, I'm wondering, could it be as simple as Cheney NOT being on her radar screen, his situation (being that it can't be wedged into her delusional dichotomies of good/ evil, what she can/ cannot exploit, etc.) simply not being of interest to her? She didn't think about it , in other words!!! Oh well, whatever, in that, yeah, it was kind of nice to see her at a loss for words for once...............P.S. Yeah, we probably do need some tort reform. All I'm saying in that this, unlike the Cheney bull-crap, actually IS a complicated issue, never be minding her hackneyed solutions to it.